It's not just Adobe that's altering its plans when it comes to browser plugins designed to play back rich web media — Microsoft's joining in too. New releases of Silverlight, Redmond's big competitor to Flash Player, are reportedly going to be abandoned after the launch of Silverlight 5, expected later this month. This information comes from multiple sources cited by the usually well-informed Mary Jo Foley. They don't know how long Microsoft will maintain support for Silverlight 5 or if there'll be any service packs, but it does seem like the company will be switching its operational focus to other areas and halting active development of Silverlight.
The move away from Silverlight isn't actually unexpected, as Microsoft had already indicated it considers HTML5 "the future" of the web and the introduction of WinRT in Windows 8 was already pushing in that direction, but it's still interesting to see both Flash and Silverlight being de-emphasized by their makers at about the same time. Neither of them is about to disappear, mind you, as Flash remains the primary way in which web video is consumed while Silverlight still has a role to play in Windows Phone app development. They do, however, look likely to play increasingly marginal roles in future software and web development. Some might call that a good thing.

Comments
Good riddance.
If the more versatile Flash is deemed obsolete, Silverlight should definitely go.
And I’ve got to say: Microsoft is really beginning to take mobile seriously by cutting al the clutter. HTML 5 it is and as John Gruber wrote some hours ago about the flushing of flash: everybody wins.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:26 AM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Seriously. Is anybody even going to miss Silverlight?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:45 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I am, I liked coding on it :/
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:38 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Rephrase: Is anybody, who is not a Silverlight developer, even going to miss Silverlight?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:45 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yep. Developers. Silverlight took its niche in corporate world. It’s much easier to work and develop with than, say, JEE/HTML5/JS.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Once Netflix gets rid of their Silverlight plugin requirement I’ll finally be able to uninstall it. But does this mean the future of Flash on the desktop is doomed?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
My thoughts exactly. Plus it’ll mean Netflix will finally support Linux which is something I’ve been looking forward to for awhile. It’ll mean I can finally get rid of Windows 7
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Netflix uses silverlight, but other than that no. I usually avoid silverlight like the plague (or at least java applets).
And Adobe isn’t stopping flash development as much as admitting it’s role has changed. They are saying that it may not be the best solution for media content delivery with rise of HTML5, but there is still a role for it to fill that HTML5 has trouble filling.
1) games (WebGL has a long way to go and I don’t have a lot of confidence in it) 2) enterprise apps. But if they want to gain steam with these areas then they have to get there head in the game.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:08 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I don’t think HTML 5 has any DRM capabilities, so Netflix will probably be keeping Silverlight (which has better DRM than Flash).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Flash has DRM capabilities.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He said “better DRM than Flash”. That indicates Flash has DRM, just not a very good one.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s not true. Flash has DRM and it’s pretty much up to what Silverlight offers. However, at time when Netflix player was under development, Flash had no video DRM at all.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hopefully Netflix will find a replacement at some point (and I’m crossing my fingers that its sooner rather than later).
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why I expect that they will use HTML5 as the replacement. It has, after all, been touted as the holy grail of web technology. </sarcasm>
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 4:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
WebGL is already here and actually viable.
http://chrome.bouncymousegame.com/ for example (This specifically has been built for Chrome). If you weren’t told it was WebGL, you’d assume it was Flash.
It’s the tools, libraries, and frameworks that have a long way to go. Building a game with WebGL is a lot of work compared to Flash.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So then it’s up to companies that create software that makes life easy for creative people, to create something that allows WebGL to be easier, no? Someone like Adobe?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Obviously it does not happen because of Javascript which is a) poor language, not modular, static interfaces etc b) slow, c) sources can’t be hidden, d) security model is too restrictive, e) requires code download every time you open the page, d) does not have interface with native code… I can continue. Yes, Google did some step in right direction, like support for native apps in Chrome etc, but essentially they gave up on changing Javascript by moving toward DART.
Now, please, somebody tell me why is DART is any better than Flash, Silverlight or Java FX? :) Same crappola, but made by Google to my humble understanding. Here’s the bottom line. Google has no clue how to turn their beloved Chrome into an OS.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nope it is not viable as it is ridden with security holes. MS refuses to support WebGL. Mozilla also acknowledges WebGL’s potential kernel hacks via GPU driver access and, while agreeing with MS on this, they do hope that MS will find a way to support it.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Let’s just say that Netflix is hiring HTML5 developers in droves …
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 1:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Coding for it is pretty easy. It’s a pain to actually use it…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Only in the sense that you don’t like to.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 7:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As long as Netflix gets updated I don’t car :-). What I think is great about this is that with major forces like Apple, Adobe and Microsoft all pushing for HTML5 my hope is that we get to see the fruit sooner than later and on many more platforms.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:12 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I am. Although flash works for games and stuff, for anything actually useful, Silverlight is far superior.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 7:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
silver light was crap
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:28 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What didn’t you like about it?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:42 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t know how Silverlight works, but every single Silverlight video player I’ve tried was…slow, to say the least. That’s not to say all of the flash players have been perfect either, but they’re generally better.
That’s just my experience with it, so, meh.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:30 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Example?
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
With good Silverlight experiences, users don’t even realize Silverlight is being used.
It’s the crappy implementations that people recognize and remember…
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:41 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
No its not…it is better than flash..hands down.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:14 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
It’s better than Flash by miles from a developer point of view but I haven’t had any really compelling end user experiences from Silverlight.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:37 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You never saw a video streaming with SmoothStreaming technology? Then you have n’t seen Silverlight.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:01 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
What’s so special about that demo? Flash starting from 10.1 supports smooth streaming (they call it adaptive streaming AKA HTTP streaming). Besides it was possible to implement with Actionscript starting from Flash 9 with some hacks. So obviously you’ve missed Adobe’s demos. :)
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s better than Real during ye olde days.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 4:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I feel like Apple just took out two birds with one stone, good aim.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:28 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Isn’t the saying “two pigs with one bird” nowadays?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:30 AM EST reply Recommend (51) Flag actions
Epic comment.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:56 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually it’s: All pigs with one bird.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What did Apple develop that was an alternative?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:07 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
They haven’t developed anything, but they also never gave into the pressure of not offering Flash support on their devices and instead helped push the HTML 5 movement/development forward.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:23 AM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
That explains the flash part but has nothing to do with Silverlight. The technologies have similarities but Silverlight is not Microsoft’s version of Flash.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:36 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Nonsense. They’re both virtual machines running in a browser plugin with a rich presentation layer and video playback hooks. More importantly, it was MS’s last major effort to make the Web rely on MS technology after Firefox (and later Chrome) broke IE’s monopoly. The ongoing epic failure of Silverlight outside of the enterprise is exactly why MS switched to being a major HTML5 backer and is giving us WinRT in Windows 8.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:52 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Ignorance is bliss they say. Silverlight was never high profile in the first place. Silverlight was MS’s hobby like AppleTV is to Apple. Silverlight will, par example, be used in the upcoming xbox(an arm one so they say) as a framework for xbox live’s TV service. Silverlight will exist as MS’s tool, be exclusive to IE(also a rumor) and all in all a behind the scene tech.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:18 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Not really. When it was launched it was literally pinched as a new Flash. Look at Netflix presentation from 4 years back for instance. Problem was that Microsoft did not realize that Flash is good not just for video but for application development as well. And Adobe did their best to push Flex to enterprise developers. Microsoft literally threw a kitchen sink at Adobe, but did not succeed at killing Flash.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How it was perceived is irrelevant, Silverlight was developed as a tool(Flash like) that MS needed to add to its portfolio. Their intent was never about killing Flash.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What did Apple give? How about WebKit, which they popularized and improved upon enough to make it the engine for most newer browsers today, including Chrome. That’s a pretty good answer to Flash.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What does that do to affect all the uses of Silverlight? He said two birds with one stone, and this is a Silverlight article, not a flash article.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Webkit also supported Flash and Silverlight so that didn’t really do much to hinder them. If you mean it supported HTML5, then that is true but HTML5 is not a feature exclusive to Webkit.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Webkit does not support them, but wrappers around it called Chrome and Safari support plugins. Don’t mix up an engine that does not know anything about plugins with browsers (front-end wrappers) that use the engine.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I haven’t really said anything that I was implying so I’ll say this, Apple had a hand in the advancement of HTML5 just as Google and Microsoft have. Apple refusing to support flash has helped increase the speed that HTML5 is developing and HTML5 replaces some uses of Silverlight but not all of them.
The reason MS would be likely to stop development of Silverlight after 5 is because the WinRT platform is a successor. It provides the functionality of Silverlight and incorporates HTML5+Javascript+CSS but still allows the use of C# or whatever supported language you prefer. Apple really had no hand in the replacement of Silverlight so that is why I question the statement " Apple just took out two birds with one stone"
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:40 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
An ego!
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple contributes to webkit development.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wish they would develop something to replace Flex or Visual Studio first. XCode has nothing to do with web development so far. So in that regard Apple did nothing to create an alternative. HTML5/JS development did not change much. It sill sucks.
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I am honestly failing to see how it was Apple that drove this.
It’s more thanks to the entire web community focusing heavily on HTML5 implementations of their websites, e.g. YouTube offering HTML5, various people playing around with HTML5 features that replicate a lot for what Flash is used for now.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:23 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
It was apple who shipped a successful platform without flash; which prompted a large part of the html 5 shift. IE; youtube, porn sites etc.
it’s not fanboyism, it’s just what happened, in really really recent history. sigh.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:30 AM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
As Jesse’s reply also mentioned, it has everything to do with Apple. Apple pushed Google to add H.264 video to YouTube, and first delivered playback of that video on the iPhone and first Apple TV. This is what ignited the entire movement to finally getting HTML5 video off the ground, with H.264 as the predominant standard for non-Flash playback. Had Apple not done this, you’d still have Flash trying to run in mobiles today, and perhaps a sprinkling of mobile success as Google dabbled in trying to push WebM on the world.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/20/youtube-hits-apple-tv-today-headed-for-the-iphone-as-well/
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:22 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
But, but, H.264 isn’t the future! Everyone knows the future is Ogg Vorbis, or whatever Mozilla insists this week.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 5:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Or WebGL for that matter, stuff that Mozilla also insists.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple drove this when they banned the iPhone from having Silverlight or Flash. The mono project was on the verge of releasing Moonlight (an open-source silverlight port) for the iPhone when the announcement was made. That announcement essentially killed any possibility of a non-HTML5 cross-platform language.
Posted on Dec 05, 2011 | 9:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If this speeds up the developement of HTML5 i’d be happy. Because flash doesn’t work very well on the most mobile devices and i don’t really like plugins.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m sure that when we look back some 5 years in the future, we will all say that this is a loss none of us care about.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:49 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This whole Silverlight fiasco really shows that MS did know what they were doing 4 or 5 years ago. Much of Metro in W8 was built using web standards. Hopefully they know what they’re doing now.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:52 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There is no fiasco in Silverlight, maybe in your mind.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think this information is wrong.
Silverlight is popular in enterprise development, so I think it is completely impossible that MS will abandon it.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:54 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
This is what is confusing. I am developing an SL application for my company. We chose SL because it was it was more suited for the line of business app. If SL is going away, what is the replacement? Is HTML5 going to have datagrids and other data controls needed for lob apps?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:09 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
It’s HTML5 + Javascript + CSS3. You can do anything in that combo that you could have in SL. It’ll require a bit more thought from you but the end result should be the same (or better)
If you are just looking for SL-like controls, check out http://www.sencha.com/products/extjs/ – altough every time i visit that page I am creeped out by that guy’s video.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:15 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
what about video streaming DRM. can you have that?
because from what i understand, thats the reason netflix uses silverlight, and other companies use flash.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:05 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
As I understand it, the greatest benefit of HTML5 is the addition of the native media controls. So for enterprise type apps, I’m back to javascript for the fancy stuff.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:41 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you’re writing for Silverlight, you can get a lot of the same benefits by writing to a native Windows Forms or WPF app. Certainly there are plenty of datagrid controls for that scenario.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But then you have to deploy a desktop app to how many thousand users? Compared to just asking the user to visit a URL and knowing they’ll always have the latest version. Silverlight, for its faults and limited adoption, is (was?) a beautiful platform to develop for.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 3:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
ASP.NET has a huge pile of data-driven controls. Couple that with HTML5/CSS3/JavaScript and you can do any manner of things. It’s not as designer-driven as Silverlight (you’re going to be writing a lot more code rather than drag-and-drop) because Visual Studio’s HTML WYSIWYG editor is kind of junk, but ASP.NET can do everything with data that Silverlight can.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Do you mean “popular” as in “widely used in companies” (like IE6)?
There are better alternatives to SL that are not Flash. I’m talking about HTML5 etc here.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Also, I must say, that there is no alternative for Silverlight in 3D inside of browser. Unity can’t compete, as it sucks in building traditional UI over 3D.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:57 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I am not entirely sure what you are saying or asking here. Are you talking about 3D or traditional UI? Or are you talking about an overlay of traditional UI controls over a 3D viewport?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m telling about overlay. There is XNA viewport in SP apps and SL viewport in XNA apps. Unity is great 3D engine, but it’s good only for creating games, because it is very hard to create traditional UI-overlay in LOB applications.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There is. Check out WebGL.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:11 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Are you kidding me? That’s hillarious..
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:43 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Why? People have already demonstrated industrial strength 3D with UI elements in WebGL. And of course a lot of scientific visualization already happens in OpenGL on the desktop so it’s an easy port over.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except that WebGl has security holes and won’t be supported by MS for example.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 8:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You should ask those people how much time they spent on nice demos. Actually original post was about traditional non-3D UI, meaning that currently there’s no way… YES, REPEAT, NO WAY to build traditional rich UI for web browsers outside of Flash and Silverlight. HTML5 is not even close in that regard and it does not have IDE’s for developers (AT ALL!!!).
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 2:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think at the least, Microsoft will continue to offer security fixes, performance tweaks and general support for Silverlight 5 for quite some time – there are a large number of corporate sites, both internal and external, that make use of it, not to mention Netflix (I think they’re still using Silverlight for streaming HD video?).
Eventually, when most browsers support hardware-accelerated 2D and 3D graphics, and Javascript/EcmaScript engines in browsers get faster, Silverlight will be redundant. But even on Silverlight 4, the same benchmarks (doing a large sequence of integer or floating-point computations, and doing animations – especially using opacity for overlays) are MUCH MUCH faster in Silverlight’s JIT-compiled runtime than they are on any current implementation of javascript in any browser. By about 10x or more.
I know people don’t like plug-ins, and on consumer-facing websites, I think they’re generally a bad idea. But for RAD of business applications, or for doing high-performance calculations or animation in your browser, or for accessing local system resources (which the browser cannot, for the most part, for security reasons), I think Silverlight still has an important place.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This could be one of those rare times that common sense prevails. I can’t wait for Silverlight and Flash to go and the focus shift to development of html5.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:14 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Netflix is still using silverlight for their mac and windows client; It’s why they’ve had no Linux support for Netflix so far, and that’s been holding back a number of HTPC projects.
Speaking as a web developer, the faster these proprietary plugins die, the better- it makes it really hard to maintain a site- a simple text change takes a full-blown production environment. That makes sense on the business side, but not stupid little introduction elements.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 7:21 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I think for people to fully embrace HTML5 as way of providing video on a web page they need to find a way to not have to hit F11 when you go fullscreen. Anyone using YouTube’s HTML5 beta (or who has watched any videos on this site for that matter) knows what I’m talking about.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:16 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
HTML5 has always been on track to replace flash and silverlight. It was just a matter of it being complete enough and supported by enough browsers, which seems to be fast approaching.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:18 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Aside from MSN sites who even uses Silverlight anyhow? That was a stupid idea for Microsoft to even attempt to compete with Adobe Flash.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 9:31 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It isn’t a Flash competitor, it is more like AIR (which came after) than anything. The past 5 contracts I have had have been working with oil and exploration companies all using Silverlight for their applications.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And the contract I’m on right now – with a coal company – is to build a Silverlight-based app for their core LOB. Maybe something to do with fossil fuels and Silverlight… hmmm…
Posted on Nov 16, 2011 | 2:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just a small company called Netflix.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:15 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It seems weird that they would drop it now considering how heavily it’s used by applications in the new Xbox dashboard update.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:03 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
We’ll see what they say, could just be for web browsers seeing windows phone apps can be coded in silverlight. (and run well at that)
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
As far as Flash goes, it’s still going to be a prominent part of the web for a long time. Adobe just mentioned they’re stopping development for mobile platforms. That may eventually translate to the desktop, but don’t count on that happening anytime soon.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I suppose it didn’t help that their logo always looked like a misshaped, fluffy blue blog.
Correction: it was a misshaped, fluffy blue blob.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What about the strong relationship with the new database system Lightswitch recently launched. I think they are quite strongly coupled. Also, where will WPF go? That my get focus for app development.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 10:38 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Microsoft’s story on WPF has been confused for years (not to mention the multiple deaths of MFC), but Silverlight is just WPF in a browser plugin. Dropping that doesn’t hurt WPF on the desktop.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Silverlight is valuable also because it’s a browser plugin. It’s good for developing intranet/corporate apps, working in networks.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 11:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I love Silverlight as a developer, but it just does not belong in the browser anymore. I’m glad they’re removing it from the web.. SL isn’t going anywhere though; you’ll still be able to create Windows 8, Windows Phone apps with it.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:07 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Silverwhat?
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 12:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Silverlight
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 6:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Some of you are confused, Silverlight is not really going away. They are just going to stop calling it Silverlight. if you look at WinRT it is driven by the same thing as Silverlight.
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 1:32 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s completely incorrect. WinRT is native to Windows. Silverlight is cross-platform.
Posted on Dec 05, 2011 | 9:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Silverlight
Posted on Nov 09, 2011 | 2:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not working on Linux? Huh? http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 3:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
this really doesn’t make sense. isn’t windows phone 7 all based on silverlight? are they going to abandon windows phone?
Posted on Nov 10, 2011 | 7:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It does. WP7 is based on Silverlight, that is true, but WP7 Silverlight != “normal” Silverlight. They are different.
Posted on Nov 11, 2011 | 9:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This seems odd, as M$ is currently trying to challenge Amazon EC2 CDN service with their brand new Azure CDN. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/features/cdn/
Silverlight has good technology, but horrible adoption rates because it’s been so badly communicated and mismanaged (in typical M$ fashion).
HLS streams and HTML5 delivery still have a way to go before it’s the dominant video streaming technology. Today, it’s still just the “next big thing.”
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“New releases of Silverlight, Redmond’s big competitor to Flash Player”
- It’s that type of misinformation that makes me mad. Comparing Flash and Silverlight in a popular article is ignorant.
Posted on Dec 05, 2011 | 9:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed